We setting up a post of who's going? I'll probably go to watch before class.

The last time I was in that courtroom I had no cell reception, nor could I pick up the wifi. You'll have to settle for the audio posting and post game commentary.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

Nooooo heh you DO NOT wanna bring a recording device into a federal courtroom, that's begging for U.S. Marshals to remove you from the courtroom and . Recording devices are straight up banned in federal courtrooms. Unless you're press or an attorney, don't even try to bring in a phone and they don't go in through the same entrance as the general public. When you go through security, you had better empty your pockets and they let you check your phone at the door. The Court records orals, posts recordings on the website. Circuit Rule 55 is wishy washy but I wouldn't push my luck.

"CIRCUIT RULE 55. Prohibition of Photographs and BroadcastsThe taking of photographs in, or radio or television broadcasting from the courtroom or any other place on the 27th floor or judges' chambers or corridors adjacent thereto on the 26th floor of the Federal Courthouse located at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, without permission of the court, is prohibited."

Then there's Local Rule 83.1 for the Northern District even though they've been suspending it and the Circuit has been allowing some cameras in civil proceedings (criminal proceedings, nope, never)....

"LR83.1. Court Facilities: Limitations on Use (a) Court Environs Defined. For the purpose of this rule the term “court environs” shall refer to the following areas:(1) in Chicago in the Courthouse:

They're afraid of privileged communication being recorded. Not even purposefully. It is a courthouse and there are people with their attorneys walking and talking about stuff. The Northern District suspended that localcrule for a few cases and allowed cameras during civil proceedings as a test run. They did it in federal district courts in Iowa and a few other places too but the Circuit Rules preempt local rules. FRCP (criminal not civil) Rule 53 explicitly bans all A/V devices during criminal proceedings, for obvious reasons but the rules about recording stuff are meant to protect privacy mostly. Can't have someone slinking around the judges' chambers with a digital audio recorder heh.

Actually CA7 is a lot less strict about all that stuff than other Circuits. I looked at the Circuit Rules for the D.C. Circuit, Fifth and and Ninth and with the exception of the Ninth, they expressly ban phones and pretty much anything electronic since even an iPod can make recordings. Check your stuff at the door. The DC Circuit doesnt allow any electronic device that can record audio, video or stills unless you're an attorney, juror, media, or an examiner for the parole commission. Fifth Circuit rules expressly bans all electronic devices in the building without prior permission. Ninth Circuit allows them, allows people to make calls in hallways and anywhere but in the courtroom. Allows visitors and attorneys to use them to take notes and other stuff while court is in session but that's it. Your phone rings in open court, whoo that'll be ugly heh.

Actually CA7 is a lot less strict about all that stuff than other Circuits. I looked at the Circuit Rules for the D.C. Circuit, Fifth and and Ninth and with the exception of the Ninth, they expressly ban phones and pretty much anything electronic since even an iPod can make recordings. Check your stuff at the door. The DC Circuit doesnt allow any electronic device that can record audio, video or stills unless you're an attorney, juror, media, or an examiner for the parole commission. Fifth Circuit rules expressly bans all electronic devices in the building without prior permission. Ninth Circuit allows them, allows people to make calls in hallways and anywhere but in the courtroom. Allows visitors and attorneys to use them to take notes and other stuff while court is in session but that's it. Your phone rings in open court, whoo that'll be ugly heh.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

When I went to Moore/Shepard orals a year ago, phones were okay as long as you didn't use them in the courtroom. I turned mine off and took about 8 or 9 pages of notes on a mini legal pad. After the arguments were over, several of us met in an adjoining room, and someone suggested a group picture, but the CSO's stopped them. Photography for other than news purposes is generally prohibited in most any federal building. In my local US Dist Courthouse, there are lockers to leave your phone/electronics by the entrance. Nothing like that last year when I visited CA7.

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012

Judge Davis also suggested that they just "do everyone a favor" and decide it in order to kick it up to SCOTUS and Judge King basically said "Is there any way we can get out of dealing with this? Anyone?"

Actually they punched eject with that ruling. Then CA3 apparently decided they wanted to one up the Fourth with the "presumptively lawful" due to "long-standing tradition" language in Drake. Presumptively awful...the NJ AG who argued that case for the state is a woman and the court basically said that a ban on women voting and holding public office is constitutional because, well ya know its tradition like fraternity hazing, slavery, or requiring next of kin to submit petitioner's/decedent's death certificate so the court will grant petitioner/decedent a carry permit.

In response to Judge Davis’s inquiry about seeking additional guidance from the Supreme Court by simply making a ruling:

Appellees maintain that Article III courts cannot decline to decide constitutional questions. Appellees’ Br. 12-14. However, if the Court desires additional guidance, the correct procedure is not to enter a decision, but to certify a question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2).

Basically telling a circuit court judge that he doesn't know his own job !

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.

Their egos are too large to actually ask for SCOTUS to take the case because they can't figure it out. That's akin to saying "we're too incompetent, can you read that Constitution thingy for us pleasaase"

Their egos are too large to actually ask for SCOTUS to take the case because they can't figure it out. That's akin to saying "we're too incompetent, can you read that Constitution thingy for us pleasaase"

It's a wild card. at this point I truly have no idea what the panel will do although I'm fairly certain that Stiehl's ruling will be dumped. Beyond that, I dunno. I saw Myerscough stayed the proceedings in Moore indicating that she believes Stiehl will be overturned. As far as an injunction goes, well, Aguilar took care of that one. But the issue of the "new" statute being substantially similar to the "old" is what's up for debate and its anyone's guess. If the ISP keeps dragging its feet and coming up with excuses, well that does not bode well for the state especially since they stated they'd adhere to the mandated deadlines.

It's a wild card. at this point I truly have no idea what the panel will do although I'm fairly certain that Stiehl's ruling will be dumped. Beyond that, I dunno. I saw Myerscough stayed the proceedings in Moore indicating that she believes Stiehl will be overturned. As far as an injunction goes, well, Aguilar took care of that one. But the issue of the "new" statute being substantially similar to the "old" is what's up for debate and its anyone's guess. If the ISP keeps dragging its feet and coming up with excuses, well that does not bode well for the state especially since they stated they'd adhere to the mandated deadlines.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Skinny, if they do rule the new version is unconstitutional or parts of it are, can Madigan then appeal to SCOTUS or has that door closed already.

I know it's past the deadline but since it's a "New" law does that mean she gets another shot at SCOTUS? My worry is that if it does she'll ask for, and get from SCOTUS if not from the 7th, another stay which would basically mean we'd have permits issued by the time SCOTUS got around to hearing it.

Also the last time the Posner panel gave her a stay of mandate, they made it clear it would be the last time. More importantly, Illinois filed to have Shepard and Moore dismissed as moot. Which in one case was already granted at the lower court. But anyway, you cannot simultaneously file for dismissal with the lower court, and file for a stay of mandate from CA7.

Edited by C0untZer0, 21 September 2013 - 09:59 PM.

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.